FDA Repressing cancer treatment more effective than Chemo and a potential cure

reply to post by getreadyalready


Maybe the real culprit here is the lawsuits that stem from every decision a doctor makes. That even if the patient is terminal and dies, it doesn't mean the family can't sue on their behalf for "suffering".

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by mockrock

 

This chap has been treating people, no?

Claims to have treated 8,000 people. What happened to them? Were they cured? Where are his documents or some form of substantiating records?

Burzynski Patient Stories

or the site run by his patients Here.

And Here are the actual records of some patients that have chosen to share. Complete with MRI's and Pathology reports.

Let me know what you think.

edit on 18-11-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Thanks for that information, do find all this difficult.. Just wish I had known about this Doctor 4 years ago. But at the time everything tells you just trust the doctors.. You also worry about giving people false hope, but it would have been worth a shot! Surely if someone is diagnosed as terminal you have to get radical and try something new.. In the UK cancer treatment costs about £3.5 Billion per year, a large percentage of that is on drugs.. While people were dying for a cure, it was was suppressed to maintain stock prices ! People need to go to jail for this.. surely this is manslaughter or even murder !

Originally posted by jondave
If there is a cure, how could anyone hold it back.

By discrediting the person that finds it, trying to throw them in jail, coming out and officially stating they are a quack and it doesn't work, and handpicking cases where the "cure" failed. Then you can say if you want to give out this cure you must spend hundreds of millions of dollars on trials first. If you knew the cure could you afford that?

Originally posted by Phage
Sounds like "big pharma" would be interested in something like this.

Antineoplastons are given orally or by injection into a vein. The duration of treatment usually ranges from eight to twelve months. A year of treatment can cost from $30,000 to $60,000, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery.

Maybe if the results of the "clinical trials" could be reproduced they would be.

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped 'many' people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment…. Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."

Source

Dr. Weil is a harsh critic of many conventional cancer treatments.

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I typically agree with you Phage as a voice of reason in this chorus of madness, but unless the data I have seen has been faked apparently the stage 2 clinical trials have had some success, including curing 25% of inoperable brain tumors that have never been cured before. (Feel free to replace cure with sent into remission)